34 THE HXGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(XRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
% DATED 'I'H{S THE 19TH DAY OF' JANUAE§'m2(§{3§: .
Paassrmg
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'}?_vICEj=~Hn.fiv§fLI;A'PP}X'V
THE H()N'BLE Mii>.;}_b*S*rI_(f§-713:1» L. ' réA2§AYANA SWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS i;«*i'Ii'2'e';'f;~:,I;§>r°-:€%.§.A\;. :\iov.::}2:§§o5i2o06 (WC)
Ba'rwEIi2;§: V. '
Ur1§.ted I'I1a:§ia men;-azxce Lid.
§3a3figaI?e'ddy',' ,_ ' '
Through its Regiaen££1__C}fiiCe,
# 25, Shaizkaiaxrarrszyéma Buildings,
M, (3. Road,
£';s3nga1ore~ 560. 1,
R691»-."i::y 53:3 Deputy Managfir
' Rae. Appellant
H " . (By xseetharama Rat) and
Piaveen Kumar, Advs.)
1. Sr;i.Amm Kumar,
Aged abeut 34 years,
S/0 Nagesh Magenni,
R/at: KHB Colony,
Near Bus Depot,
V
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against _
and awam dated 19.9.2005; eassed.~b3§.:’j:the*~::MAC1fI’,*AV.
Sa111’1datti,in MVC No.193o/2000.} A
2. By award, the
Tribunal has R s.25,56,250/-
with
._ +3; tiiatifllé appellant has filed
_ . .
4. “~ _ h’;..1i:1*ief, “tiie facts are, on 2»10~200o, the
A v.re$pone1efitӎ.nd his friends were travelling in
‘ g Ne.KA:33:M–410. Near Chaehadi
bearing No.AP.16/W/779 came from
x the -etppesite d1rect:’ ‘on at high speed and dashed
the Tempo trax. As a result of that, the first
respondent sustained ‘injuries. He claimed
L.//
:5:
earnings. He, therefore, submitted that
judment and award cannot be susta1’ned”-iigi
6. As against this,
the respondents submitted; ontwt
proper consideraticifi-._of oxtitireoord, has
heid, the Truck ,,,,,,«ce%_g;;s;nsib1e for the
accident” not call for
or t,,.,b mi£ted that the fixst
at,,.V’fi§};tss~5twV’Conn’actor and he has
suffered {ooh/5 and therefore, the Tribunal
awxardedvt e’e;m;,pensation of Rs.16,44,’720/-
of eamm’ g capacity, and therefore, it
_ for interference. He also submitted that
the judgment and award does not call for
” * eioterferezloe and therefore, the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
t/.
:6:
7. We have carefully considered” the
submissions made by the learned Counsel
pazfies.
8. The point that aflees fozf V’ ‘
is, whether the impugxed
for interference?
9. It is “1§1o”£e_,. t I1e’ T” has
held, the truck .::”‘Vefee;ponsib1e for the
accident. the appellant
conten<§{ié(};;"»_««3;I§e1"£V*_V__ _fi'?""c'1Hs not justified in
responsible for the
accideiaf. any merit in this ccntenfion,
for has met adduced any
evidence of PWS. 1 and 2 clearly
' " Itige truck driver was responsible for the
L/.. .
” ‘::’i’he truck driver has been charge—sheeted.
Th%::.VV’f:’ibuna1 c::o£1sideri.I1g the material on record, has
L/
:7’:
held, the truck: driver was responsible for the
accident. We do not find any error or illegality
10. The next question is,
compensation awarded by the
of future earnings is just
respondent has suffered e’f1fact1:é:feiof L- o
‘sub~laxation of L1 over’ of iower 1 / 3
Humerous, left’. bones of
forearm “i:”The doctor has
deposeci, «suffered complete
” and he is unable to
staifgd ._ee -suffered loss of sensation in
bothiithe loiivee is unable to do his routine
véofke. and e1.ifi’1ou1ty in working with the lefi
doctor has assessed the disability at 100%
– the lower limbs and 10% in respect of
{he limb; Ex.P.24 is the disability certificate.
so “i’1’1evV’sI’x’ibz1nal taking into ceinsideraeon the disability
L/
:8:
and natuze of inguries suffered by the fiI’St
and he is unable to do his work,
disability at 100°/E) to
towards loss of future eaax_13ir1gs,:”%vI1ic11i,_is’A’
proper and therefore, it
The first is and
Ex.P.11 Income shows the
income of year 1999-2000
was Tribunal has taken
reetiondent at Rs. 1,053,795 / ~
per ‘Njust and proper. The first
respondent 28 years at the time of accident
multiplier of 16 is proper. Therefore, in
eonsifiexed view, there is no merit in the
eofotention, the compensation awarded by the
it » ‘ towards loss of future eaminge is incorrect
therefore, it is rejected.
l.,/
1 Sub*
:9:
11. We do not find any meiit in the ggfiiafiitifin
that interest awarded is uxmeasonable
it is rejected.
12. There is no >
it is liable to be dism%1ssed%.iiii’ijj i
13. Accordingly, The amount
in deposit: ‘ the Tribunal for
Sd/’-
Judge
a _____
Eufiga
BS3.